740.00116 PW/11–945: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State
[Received 7:18 p.m.]
11796. From Hodgson. ReEmbs cables 11417, November 1; 11534, November 3,72 and 11594, November 5, and Dept’s 9753 of November 6. At special meeting of War Crimes Commission held on November 8 Chairman stated Commission should consider draft letter concerning recommendations contained in document C.145 (1).72a
Australian representative said that sending of letter to United Kingdom Foreign Office was an urgent matter because recommendations might be shelved and there was no central inter-governmental agency to coordinate evidence being collected by investigating teams. He insisted matter be put to vote.
In reply to Chairman’s question as to views of United Kingdom Government, Craigie stated he had received an interim reply but he preferred to make a detailed statement at meeting to be held on November 14.
In reply to Chairman’s question concerning views of Chinese Govt, Ambassador Koo stated that speaking generally views of his Govt were favorable. He added however that since conversations were proceeding between govts principally interested in subject Chinese Govt wondered whether time was opportune for taking a decision. If [Page 959] Commission should consider it opportune he would be authorized to express definite views.
In reply to similar question it was stated by me that US Govt had studied the recommendations and had found them of assistance and in a number of respects very close to its own policy. However, in view of its desire for swift punishment for Japanese war criminals discussions through diplomatic channels had already begun with govts especially concerned with subject. It was not felt therefore that it would be appropriate to request United Kingdom Foreign Office to take action and it was believed action upon recommendations should be deferred.
When queried by Chairman, French representative stated that his position was same as mine. He said subject was being considered by his Govt also and he would find it difficult to give any information at this time. It was difficult to participate in a decision of the Commission upon a subject being considered on a diplomatic level.
New Zealand representative said he had no definite instructions but felt Far Eastern Advisory Commission73 might appreciate receiving views of War Crimes Commission set forth in document C.145 (1). He felt his Govt would wish recommendations to be brought to attention of the Far Eastern Advisory Commission.
Canadian representative stated that his Govt considered the Chairman’s proposal inopportune at the present time inasmuch as Canada and other govts were considering the proposals of the Far Eastern Advisory Commission. His Govt however generally supported the suggestion that the War Crimes Commission should acquaint the Far Eastern Advisory Commission with its recommendations.
Craigie then stated discussions were taking place between the govts and that they were very much on the lines of the Commission’s recommendations because there was a proposal for International Military Tribunals, for a Central Registry and for the early detention and trial of prisoners. The British had already taken steps to detain prisoners and set up courts. He was sure question was being considered as matter of urgency and that it would be preferable for Commission to await developments. He suggested that Commission confine itself to advising govts that matter was of greatest urgency and expressing hope that detailed answers would soon be sent to Commission.
Chairman then stated that the matter would be left in abeyance for 1 or 2 weeks.
Dept’s despatch No. 19 of October 2374 contained copy of identic note of October 18 but did not contain a copy of the memorandum of US policy. After meeting of November 8 French representative informed [Page 960] me he was studying mentioned memorandum for his Govt and believed that International Military Tribunal should be established by an agreement. Dr. Liang telephoned on November 9 and inquired whether this office had copy of memorandum which French representative had mentioned to him. He said that French representative had mentioned matter and he believed Tribunal should be established by agreement. [Hodgson.]